A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5828
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 2:42 am

I've recently mentioned a guy called Donald Netolitzky here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11525#p251507

Where I wrote;

The study refers mainly to two papers written by Donald Netolitzky, legal counsel for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, the same court that released the Meads decision. These are;

Netolitzky, D. J. The history of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument phenomenon in Canada. Alberta Law Review
https://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/422

Netolitzky, D. J. Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) in Canada: An attack on the legal system. Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law

There is apparently no freely available copy of this paper online.


Well Netolitzky's published yet another paper, with the somewhat cumbesome title;

ORGANIZED PSEUDOLEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENTS IN CANADIAN INTER-PARTNER FAMILY LAW COURT DISPUTES

which I decided to punch up a little for the title of this discussion. The article can be read here;

https://www.albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/view/784/776

He doesn't have kind words about the OPCA types;

As for naive laypersons adopting OPCA strategies, this appears unlikely given these ideas generally circulate in highly paranoid, politically extremist, and introspective marginalized social communities, with certain limited exceptions.11


He does a comparison of the underlying development American and Canadian OPCA/sovereign history;

A brief introduction to OPCA history and OPCA theories is helpful to understand OPCA inter-partner disputes. This review will focus on Canada. The US has a lengthy OPCA history, which has led to substantial commentary by academics, government bodies, and other agencies. However, US and Canadian OPCA litigation is quite different in that US Sovereign Citizen concepts were developed in rural farm and blue-collar communities with libertarian, evangelical religious, and often racist beliefs, to counter perceived excessive state interference or intrusion into personal activities via taxation, gun control, civil rights, and education curriculums.28

A dramatic shift in focus occurred when Sovereign Citizen ideas were introduced into Canada via the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. OPCA strategies were initially limited to parent versus state child custody disputes. This gave the Freeman movement and its successors a different orientation, one that is much more amenable to applying OPCA concepts in family law disputes since Freemen explicitly view children as property, and have an expanded mythos on that subject and its implications.


Robert Menard's pivotal place on Canadian OPCA history is recognized;

The Freemen-on-the-Land, the second broad-based and now dominant Canadian OPCA movement, first emerged in British Columbia “[a]round the year 2000 … in … politically leftist, ‘green,’ anti-globalization, [social activist, marijuana advocacy,] and anti-government communities.” This OPCA movement was effectively the sole creation of a single guru, Robert Arthur Menard, a British Columbia street comedian who claimed that all government authority may be defeated if an individual withdraws his or her consent to be governed. Freeman-on-the-Land concepts have a broad application, allegedly permit Freemen to evade practically any government obligation or authority, and yet, still give Menard’s followers a right to extract conventional (and extraordinary) services from the remainder of Canadian society. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this earned Freemen a popular nickname: “Freeloaders-on-the-Land.”


Along with the movement's eventual failure;

The Freeman-on-the-Land movement grew throughout the 2000s, but is now in considerable distress and upheaval. Menard failed to deliver on his many schemes. In 2014, he was arrested in Ontario for multiple counts of impersonating a peace officer, and then absconded. Menard’s guru heir apparent, Dean Clifford, was arrested in 2013 on grow-op and firearms charges. He was convicted and sentenced to three years incarceration. Clifford’s reputation, too, has suffered with the obvious failure of his ideas during his 16 month pretrial detention and at trial. The now-disintegrating Freeman movement has attracted the attention of many new gurus who scavenge for its remaining affiliates.


Netolitzky set himself the herculean task of identifying reported Canadian OPCA judgments with impressive results;

Prior investigations identified 725 reported Canadian court judgments that:

1. either had a litigant:
a. employ OPCA concepts, or
b. display OPCA litigation indicia, or;
2. reported on a proceeding where OPCA concepts or indicia were identified.

This set of decisions is the “OPCA Judgment Dataset.”


He delved deep into the OPCA underbelly to find them;

However, many identified OPCA decisions were not located via database searches, but instead with information gleaned from other sources, such as OPCA social media sites and Internet forums, media reports of OPCA activities, and data extracted from OPCA documents. Names and atypical terminology identified in this way could then be used to search reported cases. The result is that many OPCA topic judgments were identified by “chaining.” For example, this author observed an OPCA document that invoked the now abolished common law writ of coram nobis. Searching with that term then located a 2001 Alberta debt-related proceeding involving an OPCA litigant, Pat Whitfield, that resulted in several judgments. Many OPCA litigants are involved in a range of OPCA-related activities. Searching with Whitfield’s name identified a series of OPCA Detaxer judgments. Similarly, OPCA litigants often collaborate with one another. The first Whitfield debt-related judgment saw Whitfield rely on a foisted “administrative adjudication” by a “Harvey R. Jaehn.” Jaehn’s name then led to further OPCA jurisprudence.


He's clearly a man who doesn't have a lot of spare time for pointless frivolous activities like swilling craft ale in pubs.

He gets around to focusing on the topic at the bottom of the eleventh page of the paper (page 965 of the review) where he noted that of the 725 cases 39 related to family law. 19 were between spouses and the remaining 20 were against government or government entities.

He had the same problem that I've had in discussing some of the cases I've reviewed on Quatloos;

That process identified some litigants whose names had been “anonymized” in reported judgments, typically by replacing a person’s name with initials. This article does not report certain details where that additional information may breach legislation that mandates publication bans, or where the parties to family litigation were “anonymized” by the court or a judgment reporter.


Quatloos gets mentioned on page 967;

1. ALLAN JAMES CURLE

Allan James Curle has employed OPCA concepts in a number of contexts, including family subject disputes. Curle’s litigation is unusual both in its variety and forms, and also by the range of material available. Curle has drawn the attention of the Quatloos! Internet forum, a community of hobbyist OPCA analysts and critics who investigate and document OPCA activities worldwide. The Quatloos! commentators recovered and published a collection of Curle’s litigation materials and unreported judgments. This provides an unusually rich information pool to evaluate Curle’s activities and arguments.


And even a mention of me in the footnotes;

72 See online: Quatloos! <www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/>. Quatloos! is a website that tracks, documents, and debunks online scam activity. This often tongue-in-cheek forum is identified in Meads, supra note 3 at para 655 as a useful resource for study of OPCA phenomena. Its members include recognized experts in the Sovereign Citizen and tax protestor movements, such as JJ MacNab, Bernard J Sussman, and Daniel B Evans. While it initially addressed US OPCA phenomena, Quatloos! now has contributors from many Commonwealth countries, including Canada. At present, the Quatloos! forum represents the best public information and news resource for this subject domain.

73 Burnaby49, “Allan James: Curle – A New Dean Clifford Arising?” (17 June 2014), Quatloos!, online: <www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10060&p=201010&hilit=Curle#p201010>.

79 This position is explicit in R v Curle, supra note 76 at para 5. Curle’s written submissions in this action have been published by Quatloos and provide a detailed explanation of Curle’s current pseudolegal concepts. See note 95, below.

95 Quatloos! has published Curle’s arguments for his unsuccessful judicial review of his criminal convictions and his proposed constitutional attack on child support legislation. See online: Mediafire <www.mediafire.com/view/im33dx1vla0ml3f/Curle_-_CR-15-0019-MO_affidavit_for_judicial_ review_of_criminal_convictions.pdf>; <www.mediafire.com/view/1eujxm9b2elvlbv/Curle_-_CV-15- 273_proposed_Charter_application.pdf>


After this it's a review of various case histories including the ur-OPCA divorce, Meads v Meads.

We get local with G.J. on page 977 who is none other than Vancouver's own Gregor Jahn whose tribulations I followed on Quatloos;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10239&p=187085

His sidekick "R.D. from the House of H" is Rory Daniel Hawes who has a couple of discussions under his own name;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9980
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10338&p=180918

Page 983 has the court citations for the various discussed individuals if you want to check into the actual decisions behind Netolitzky's summaries.

The paper touches on another local Freeman with this comment;

The absence of these strategies from identified partner versus partner disputes is therefore very interesting. There is no theoretical reason why one partner could not, for example, use the Three/Five Letters scheme to (allegedly) prove a fact or fix an obligation on the other partner. For example, Partner A could use this mechanism to challenge Partner B to prove that B had not concealed income in a corporation owned by B. Failure to complete the foisted requirements of a Three/Five Letters procedure would then (allegedly) mean that B admits the alleged undeclared income, and is also estopped from later challenging that admission in court. This approach is often used when OPCA litigants are in conflict with state245 and institutional actors,246 and even occasionally in a personal civil litigation context.247 The Three/Five Letters scheme is a flexible, multi-purpose tool. One OPCA criminal offender even claimed this was a valid mechanism to obtain legal consent to sexual activities with underage children!248

248 This extremely disturbing application of OPCA pseudolaw is reported in R v TLP, 2015 BCSC 618, 2015 BCSC 618 (CanLII). Unsurprisingly, the foisted unilateral agreement scheme was categorically rejected as a defence to illegal sexual touching.


I reported TLP's case here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10583


Towards the end the paper makes a point I've sometimes considered, particularly when reading Gregor Jahn's court judgments;

None of the OPCA Inter-Partner Dispute Judgments squarely address what has emerged as an important issue in criminal prosecution of OPCA litigants: can an OPCA litigant be trusted to follow court instruction? When dealing with accused persons and offenders, Canadian courts have, in certain instances, concluded that judicial interim release273 and conditional sentences274 are not appropriate. OPCA affiliates claim they are exempt from state and court authority. How can they be trusted? Arguably, the same is true for OPCA litigants in a family law dispute. That said, again, the fact that OPCA litigants identified in parent-to-parent disputes did not invariably claim to be outside any authority is interesting. Penney and S.M. denied or questioned court jurisdiction, but not Curle, G.J., T.C., and A.B. Instead, there seems to be a distinction between court and state jurisdiction.


And Allen Curle gets a special mention;

Litigation sophistication varied widely, ranging from bald claims of special status (such as Penney invoking a “Strawman”-based immunity), reliance on pre-fabricated documents (such as A.B.’s debt elimination scheme), unusual applications of standard OPCA schemes (for example, Meads’ use of “A4V” in a family law debt context), to creative adaptation and development of unique OPCA schemes (as seen in Curle’s behaviours). Curle deserves special mention as an uncommon OPCA litigant who, throughout his litigation, was sophisticated in both law and pseudolaw. The 2004 Curle v. Lowe lawsuit displays a full appreciation by Curle that he must respond to Canadian jurisprudence.281 Similarly, Curle’s recent attempts to circumvent his vexatious litigant order and conduct a Charter challenge of child support legislation is, for a lay person, very well constructed and argued. The procedure is correct, his court documents are of high quality, and he faced and responded to actual Canadian law. At the same time, Curle’s pseudolegal arguments are carefully constructed, though obviously still doomed to fail. Curle is therefore both a sophisticated legal and pseudolegal SRL. Most modern Freeman-on-the-Land OPCA litigants show little understanding of legal procedure and principles, and generally flail and founder when in court. Curle, however, is a product of the Detaxer subsociety. That community adopted a more detail- and procedure-oriented litigation approach. For example, their methods included searching for formal defects in government documents, and advancing “conventional” disclosure and evidence arguments to defend against prosecution.


Netolitzky's conclusions start on page 993 and I'll leave you to read them for yourselves. I did like one analogy he made;

Another important question is whether pseudolaw could potentially become more common in family law litigation. A useful approach to this possibility is to evaluate OPCA ideas as “memes”: discrete ideas whose frequency and distribution in populations are selected in a manner analogous to how genes operate in a biological context. In brief, meme theory applies the principles of natural selection to ideas. Viewed in that context, OPCA ideas are pathogenic, parasitic, deleterious memes: they spread through populations, have a superficial appeal, and provide no useful benefit to their host, instead inflicting serious harm. When viewed from a historical perspective, OPCA concepts exhibit a memetic epidemic pattern of emergence, spread, and collapse.


Then ends with a mention of Menard's role in repackaging concepts for a new host population;

There are at least two historic examples where predominately right-wing, white, racist, anti-authoritarian Sovereign Citizen concepts were resettled into a very different host population:

1. Robert Menard repackaged and introduced Sovereign Citizen OPCA memes into the leftist, anti-government, ecologically and environmentally focused, “hippy” and “occupista” Freeman-on-the-Land movement.

2. The Moorish Law movement hosted in urban black populations adopting Sovereign Citizen memes.

Radical “inter-species leaps” of this kind appear to be rare as, worldwide, the spread of OPCA concepts has only provided a few examples of a dramatic shift in the resident conspiracy culture. That said, as Menard has demonstrated, all that it takes to “infect” a hitherto isolated and unexposed host population is the right guru: a person who identifies pseudolaw as a tool that may fit into a new setting, with a willingness to exploit that vulnerable population to his or her advantage and the necessary skills to sell the victims on the OPCA product.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby arayder » Fri Sep 15, 2017 1:37 pm

Great post, Burnaby49.

In light of freemary's epic fail the paper's author asks what's next for the OPCA movement wondering if freemen may "start taking the law into their own hands". It is my contention that one possible evolution of the freeman movement is to partner with white supremacists and neo-nazis. The wink and nod Menard and his WFS flunkies have already given to Nazi apologism and holocaust denial is well documented.

Just two days ago Menard posted the on his facebook page:

WWII was a war between NAZI's and Capitalism. Unfortunately, they won.


True to form Bobby took down comments expressing shock and surprise at his post and left up comments praising him and referring readers to pro-nazi propaganda like the history revising pseudo-documentaries that praise Adolf Hitler.

I realize am speculating about the future of freemanism. However, I think we should recognize that this paper as well as those of B. Perry, Pytyck and Chaimowitz point to freemen as marginalized outcastes. One researcher, Reid Meloy, lumps freemen in with right wing hate groups.

My fear is that desperate for relevancy the remaining brain trust of the World Freeman Society wouldn't hesitate to court any hate group that would swell their ranks and feed their egos.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby eric » Fri Sep 15, 2017 5:14 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Towards the end the paper makes a point I've sometimes considered, particularly when reading Gregor Jahn's court judgments;

None of the OPCA Inter-Partner Dispute Judgments squarely address what has emerged as an important issue in criminal prosecution of OPCA litigants: can an OPCA litigant be trusted to follow court instruction? When dealing with accused persons and offenders, Canadian courts have, in certain instances, concluded that judicial interim release273 and conditional sentences274 are not appropriate. OPCA affiliates claim they are exempt from state and court authority. How can they be trusted? Arguably, the same is true for OPCA litigants in a family law dispute. That said, again, the fact that OPCA litigants identified in parent-to-parent disputes did not invariably claim to be outside any authority is interesting. Penney and S.M. denied or questioned court jurisdiction, but not Curle, G.J., T.C., and A.B. Instead, there seems to be a distinction between court and state jurisdiction.

This may have relevance to Dean Kory's present situation. His brother, with a more serious criminal record, and more serious charges is out on his own recognizance. Dean, with nothing more serious than a CCC 810 (1a) peace bond hearing coming up is in custody.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... n-810.html

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:42 pm

I find the new paper quite interesting and it appears to be quite an extensive coverage of the phenomena. I am sure it will be received in certain circles about as well as the Rooks decision.

I know in certain segments of US sovcit community children are very definitely considered property of the parents, and in some cases so are the wives, although that seems to be much rarer. Has this filtered over to the Canadian community?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5828
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:51 pm

notorial dissent wrote:I find the new paper quite interesting and it appears to be quite an extensive coverage of the phenomena. I am sure it will be received in certain circles about as well as the Rooks decision.

I know in certain segments of US sovcit community children are very definitely considered property of the parents, and in some cases so are the wives, although that seems to be much rarer. Has this filtered over to the Canadian community?


Not to any extent. The argument about owning children is rare and, as the paper says, most freemen bail if something doesn't work and that one manifestly doesn't work. Trying it in family court just prejudices your chances of a favourable outcome. Anyhow, as the article say, even dedicated freemen tend to avoid their usual line of bullshit in family court.

I'm not aware of any sovereigns claiming ownership of wives.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:24 pm

I had wondered, perhaps the Canadian branch of the family is in fact smarter if slower on the curve. The children are property shows up fairly regularly and consistently in family services disputes down here, and it is generally pretty much the same arguments which make same think they are getting it from a single source, which I have yet to identify. The wife as property is considerably rarer, usually shows up as the coverture argument in legal cases, and inevitably fails.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3551
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby grixit » Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:13 am

Well at least Donald Netolitzky seems to have a burnabistic enjoyment in writing this 1000 page tome. But now that it is finished, some poor schlub, who probably doesn't enjoy it, will be assigned to translate it into french.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5828
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 1:21 am

grixit wrote:Well at least Donald Netolitzky seems to have a burnabistic enjoyment in writing this 1000 page tome. But now that it is finished, some poor schlub, who probably doesn't enjoy it, will be assigned to translate it into french.


Burnabismic? After some of the doorstop entries I've written I think Burnabysmal more appropriate. At least this Netolitzky guy seems to focus on facts rather than opinion. That was a hell of a lot of sovereign-based decisions he located and winnowed to get a handful of family cases.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby eric » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:28 am

grixit wrote:Well at least Donald Netolitzky seems to have a burnabistic enjoyment in writing this 1000 page tome. But now that it is finished, some poor schlub, who probably doesn't enjoy it, will be assigned to translate it into french.

You have dashed all my hopes of a comfortable retirement position. I satisfy all the requirements:
1. bilingual in an under-serviced area - check - no-one speaks French here but this is the government so who cares;
2. veteran - check;
3. disabled - check (at least according to their rules - half blind with wonky knees).

User avatar
bmxninja357
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1027
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 7:46 am

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby bmxninja357 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:31 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:even dedicated freemen tend to avoid their usual line of bullshit in family court....
...I'm not aware of any sovereigns claiming ownership of wives.


sadly there is child custody cases such as allan boisjoli that do reflect literally throwing every sovcit/freeman/opca argument at the court including child ownership; always to disastrous results.

and generally in forums or the odd letter and a couple claims of right (i have seen) that claim due to some generally 'god' based legal over ride or self serving interpretation men have claimed 'ownership' of the entire family. including the wife.

peace,
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....

DNetolitzky
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:39 am

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby DNetolitzky » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:08 am

Greetings everyone,

I'm the author of the paper that Burnaby49 has reviewed - and thank you for the kind comments, Burnaby49. One point that I thought might be useful to clarify is my publication only attempts to identify and describe inter-spouse disputes where pseudolaw has been deployed. I concluded that scenario is extremely rare, particularly when one takes into account the very large number of reported Canadian judgments that flow from divorce and common law relationship separations.

The reason that is relevant, more than anything else, is to cut off groundless speculation from law school academics. An ongoing issue in the study of pseudolaw is that law professors have an unfortunate habit of writing without actually having conducted field research on the subject under investigation. My concern on that point does not extend to the social sciences researchers who are looking into this topic. They have and are doing an excellent job, in my opinion.

In any case, a point that I thought would be useful to emphasize is that my research to date indicates the situation with parent vs state disputes is very different. A good example is, as bmxninja357 observed, are instances where one or more parents are locked in a dispute with child welfare services. My original draft of this paper included data which related to this point. In brief, this is probably the more common scenario. Without going into specific detail, the conflicts that result are often lengthy. Sadly, if OPCA concepts are deployed, the more likely result is that children and parents are separated, though, I am glad to report, that is not an inevitable result.

The "children are property" motif is common in this setting. While Carl (Karl) Lentz's theories emphasize that point, the idea clearly predates him.

I have never encountered a Canadian pseudolaw case where a wife has been identified as property. That observation should be viewed with caution, since so little pseudolaw-related litigation ends up documented in a reported judgment. Though, frankly, I would be surprised to see that idea appear in a Freeman-on-the-Land context. Whatever the issues with that community, its members are, in my experience, usually egalitarian, or at least gender-neutral.

The other parent/state conflicts involve deadbeat fathers trying to evade attempts to collect child support. Unsurprisingly, that leads to the usual A4V, Three/Five Letters, and promissory note garbage. I have not identified many examples of that.

Closing, and as a general comment, I simply wish to express my great admiration for Quatloos and its contributors. Years ago, when I began first exploring this strange world, Quatloos was a primary and critical reference tool. I continue to check it every day, if not more often. What hobbyists have accomplished here is remarkable, and I am personally and professionally in the debt of those who have and continue to take the time to help explore these strange lives, thoughts, and beliefs. It's better than any soap opera, and every so often I get to use what I learn here in a professional context. How could one possibly complain?

I'll not ramble, but simply say "thank you". You people do good work.

Donald J. Netolitzky

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5828
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:47 am

Welcome to Quatloos Donald. If you ever show up in Vancouver I'll buy you a beer. I'll even offer professional guidance on the Vancouver craft ale venues. I've done a modicum of field research on the topic of Vancouver beer establishments.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6363
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby wserra » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:31 pm

Welcome indeed, and thanks for the kind words. Hopefully we'll see you often.

I have a couple of comments/questions. No time now, however, thanks to the time I spent this morning dealing with "The Return of the Jerkoffs" in the UK sov forum.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:40 pm

Yes, Donald, welcome, a very well written paper. And just to be fair, when Burnaby says a "modicum of research" when he goes on vacation or is out of town the local brewers and purveyors go in to shock and morning.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

DNetolitzky
Tourist to Quatloosia
Tourist to Quatloosia
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 8:39 am

Re: A new paper - Canadian Divorce: OPCA Style!

Postby DNetolitzky » Tue Sep 19, 2017 7:53 pm

Thanks all for the kind words of welcome.

wserra: I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Any comments are very welcome. I have a great deal to learn about this subject area and very much value the thoughts and observations of those who have studied this topic much longer than myself.

Donald


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest